Proposed bill that would regulate NSF research funding faces backlash

Scientists not amused, bill's backers appear confused.

Over the past several months, Congress has gotten rather upset by some of the research funded by arms of the federal government, such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. That displeasure eventually prompted the House Science Committee's chair, Lamar Smith (R-TX), to float a bill that would require the head of the NSF to certify that every single grant its organization funded was either in the national interest or groundbreaking.

As we pointed out, the mission of the NSF is to fund research in fundamental questions in science (typically called "basic" research). As such, the research isn't intended to have immediate commercial or military applications; those would come decades down the line, if ever. And it's generally considered impossible to predict which areas of research will eventually be viewed as groundbreaking at some point in the future.

Now, scientists who have served in the NSF are saying the same things. In a letter to Smith obtained by Science magazine, they point out that the draft bill "frankly requires the Director [of the NSF] to accurately predict the future." And they point to a technology that's currently having a huge commercial impact—the laser—that grew out of basic research using microwaves. In fact, in their view, "many basic research projects in every field supported by the NSF would likely not qualify for certification under this bill."

Meanwhile, the magazine's news arm, Science Insider has apparently gotten one of Smith's aides to talk about the reasoning behind the bill. But the explanations are not internally consistent. The source notes that the NSF funds in the area of 11,000 grants each year and suggests that there are "a few bad apples" in that number. If it's just a few bad apples out of 11,000, is Congressional intervention really required? Suddenly, the justification changes, and there are large numbers of problematic grants: "Congress is saying, 'We think an additional step is needed to solve the problem of so many questionable grants being awarded.'"

The whole idea of "questionable" grants also appears to be a value judgement of the peer-review system, but the source continues to claim that this is a separate issue and peer review is fine. In practical terms, however, there is no way that this legislation could avoid affecting peer review. There is no possible way for the NSF director to examine and certify each of those thousands of grants every year. As such, that decision will ultimately have to be pushed down to the individuals who do examine a grant in detail: the peer reviewers.

As such, any attempts to claim that this is not an attempt by Congress to inject political considerations into the peer review process seem disingenuous.

Isn't this the same Lamarsh Smith who thought that SOPA was such a good idea? *sigh* the entire point of basic science research is to push back the frontiers of human knowledge, usually not with any direct commercial objective whatsoever. What on earth do they think they're doing?

it's a shame that the question wasn't whether Smith was as stupid and clueless now as he was when he was pushing to get SOPA into law on behalf of the USA entertainment industries. the answer of 'YES HE IS' would have been easily arrived at! how the hell dickbrains like him ever get voted into positions that affect the lives of so many is beyond me. i wouldn't put him in charge of a fucking idiot because the idiot would still be more clever!!

I'm shocked, just shocked to hear that the stellar batch of scientists, err wait...I mean science deniers, that make up the House Science Committee, can't articulate a good reason for their half-assed attempts to politicize peer reviewed science.

I'm shocked, just shocked to hear that the stellar batch of scientists, err wait...I mean science deniers, that make up the House Science Committee, can't articulate a good reason for their half-assed attempts to politicize peer reviewed science.

*grasps pearls*

When will someone think of the scientists?

*gets the vapors and faints*

lol. I actually pictured an old southern lady fainting at the last part.

The whole thing is absurd on its face. Science progresses; it builds on itself as a natural consequence of its precepts. However, to say what research will lead to amazing, society-changing breakthroughs (e.g., lasers as the article mentions) is impossible. It was years before GR had any real impact on daily life, and still longer for QM, and they are absolutely fundamental to modern society.

Science isn't about advancement, it's about the acquisition of knowledge and understanding. And, more often than not, that acquisition is through sweat, toil and running into dead ends. It's never easy, and the value rarely obvious, but it's worth it.

Of course, this was proposed by Lamar Smith, and we all remember a certain other bill he tried to get through Congress...

In my humble opinion, this proposed new method of approval is like an Improvised Explosive Device (IED): it is hard to discern when and where it'll detonate and whom or what it will harm. Congress, at the behest of a tiny fraction of special interests, could initiate a review of the peer approval process for a particular grant. If you don't think this will have a chilling effect on basic research, then you might as well cede our future to the Chinese. Politicians are no more qualified to review scientific peer reviews than I am about matters outside of my professional experience.

You ask me to render judgement on matters of software or database development and I can assure you that after thirty years of experience I can return an informed opinion as to the merits of the situation in question. You ask me to render judgement on matters of dark energy, particle physics, or the Standard Model and I can assure you that I'd be less than qualified to return any sort of informed opinion.

"Ah," you say, "but the politicians will confer with their own coterie of experts!" "Yes," I respond, "but that's where the rub comes in." The politicians' coterie of experts is dependent upon pleasing those politicians in order to receive continued consulting fees, possible salaries, or future sponsored projects of their own. I'll bet very few of you, unlike me, have bitten the hand that feeds you. I've walked away from jobs or projects that would have comprised my ethics, but in my experience, I'm the exception and not the rule. Each time I've done so, it's been with no other employment "in the wings," so to say. Weeks or months have elapsed and savings have been tapped. But I can live with myself and sleep well at night.

How many of the politicians' scientific consultants will have the same moral compass?

Fair warning: It's also well known fact that if one consultant doesn't give you the opinion you want, you can always shop around until you find one that does.

The whole thing is absurd on its face. Science progresses; it builds on itself as a natural consequence of its precepts. However, to say what research will lead to amazing, society-changing breakthroughs (e.g., lasers as the article mentions) is impossible.

"They say great science is built on the shoulders of giants - not here. At Aperture we do all our science from scratch; no hand holding." -- Cave Johnson.

"While Smith admits to having studied some science in college, most of his science credentials come straight from Congress: he’s already served on the science committee for the past 26 years. His votes reflect a pattern of opposition to climate change and alternative energy efforts, sympathy to large industry in matters of copyright and patent law, deference to law enforcement on privacy issues, and moral policing of the internet."

Anyone who lives in Lamar Smith's district, get him out of office, please! I'm sure most if not all people who read Ars already would do that but try to get your neighbors on the bandwagon and vote someone in who actually has some scientific knowledge to Congress. Maybe we can get people with actual backgrounds in science to take over the Science Committee.

Anyone who lives in Lamar Smith's district, get him out of office, please! I'm sure most if not all people who read Ars already would do that but try to get your neighbors on the bandwagon and vote someone in who actually has some scientific knowledge to Congress. Maybe we can get people with actual backgrounds in science to take over the Science Committee.

Considering he has been in office for nearly 30 years, the people in his district are probably the exact kind of easily influenced, uninformed bumpkins that make autocratic monarchy look like a good idea.You know, rural Texans.

Anyone who lives in Lamar Smith's district, get him out of office, please! I'm sure most if not all people who read Ars already would do that but try to get your neighbors on the bandwagon and vote someone in who actually has some scientific knowledge to Congress. Maybe we can get people with actual backgrounds in science to take over the Science Committee.

Considering he has been in office for nearly 30 years, the people in his district are probably the exact kind of easily influenced, uninformed bumpkins that make autocratic monarchy look like a good idea.You know, rural Texans.

Your blatantly biased opinion would be wrong. While his territory does include the hill country, the bulk of his voters are in San Antonio and Austin.

Anyone who lives in Lamar Smith's district, get him out of office, please! I'm sure most if not all people who read Ars already would do that but try to get your neighbors on the bandwagon and vote someone in who actually has some scientific knowledge to Congress. Maybe we can get people with actual backgrounds in science to take over the Science Committee.

Considering he has been in office for nearly 30 years, the people in his district are probably the exact kind of easily influenced, uninformed bumpkins that make autocratic monarchy look like a good idea.You know, rural Texans.

Your blatantly biased opinion would be wrong. While his territory does include the hill country, the bulk of his voters are in San Antonio and Austin.

It covers some of the San Antonio suburbs, but only a fraction. And it covers a small fraction of Austin. If you look at the district, it is clearly gerrymandered all to shit.

I'm shocked, just shocked to hear that the stellar batch of scientists, err wait...I mean science deniers, that make up the House Science Committee, can't articulate a good reason for their half-assed attempts to politicize peer reviewed science.

*grasps pearls*

When will someone think of the scientists?

*gets the vapors and faints*

lol. I actually pictured an old southern lady fainting at the last part.

I'm shocked, just shocked to hear that the stellar batch of scientists, err wait...I mean science deniers, that make up the House Science Committee, can't articulate a good reason for their half-assed attempts to politicize peer reviewed science.

*grasps pearls*

When will someone think of the scientists?

*gets the vapors and faints*

lol. I actually pictured an old southern lady fainting at the last part.

"many basic research projects in every field supported by the NSF would likely not qualify for certification under this bill."

That's Lamar Smith's intent. He's not the least bit interested in science, he's interested in gutting the United States government. That's why he chairs the House Science Committee, so he can gut government spending on science. You'll note that he's very interested in protecting corporate welfare for the oil industry, which is why he's not the chair of the House Energy Committee - nothing for him to cut there.

Anyone who lives in Lamar Smith's district, get him out of office, please! I'm sure most if not all people who read Ars already would do that but try to get your neighbors on the bandwagon and vote someone in who actually has some scientific knowledge to Congress. Maybe we can get people with actual backgrounds in science to take over the Science Committee.

Considering he has been in office for nearly 30 years, the people in his district are probably the exact kind of easily influenced, uninformed bumpkins that make autocratic monarchy look like a good idea.You know, rural Texans.

Your blatantly biased opinion would be wrong. While his territory does include the hill country, the bulk of his voters are in San Antonio and Austin.

It covers some of the San Antonio suburbs, but only a fraction. And it covers a small fraction of Austin. If you look at the district, it is clearly gerrymandered all to shit.

Exactly, districts in TX are design to slice cities (mostly D) and splice them with rural districts (exclusively R). There is exactly zero chance that this district will be democratic in near or distant future. That is American democracy 101.

I'm shocked, just shocked to hear that the stellar batch of scientists, err wait...I mean science deniers, that make up the House Science Committee, can't articulate a good reason for their half-assed attempts to politicize peer reviewed science.

Mr. Lamar Smith, you either trust scientists and the peer-review process, or you don't. You can't hold both positions at once. If peer-review is not broken, then there is no reason to have this intellectualy-chalenged bill. Mr Smith could try to decrease the total NSF budget, or even intervene in the NSF budget structure to shift money between different divisions, but to intervene at a single grant level is basically government censorship.

Mr. Lamar Smith, you either trust scientists and the peer-review process, or you don't. You can't hold both positions at once. If peer-review is not broken, then there is no reason to have this intellectualy-chalenged bill. Mr Smith could try to decrease the total NSF budget, or even intervene in the NSF budget structure to shift money between different divisions, but to intervene at a single grant level is basically government censorship.

You people assume that Representative Smith understands that the peer-reviewers are the approvers of said scientific research. That's a pretty high assumption bar to clear.

... how the hell dickbrains like him ever get voted into positions that affect the lives of so many is beyond me. i wouldn't put him in charge of a fucking idiot because the idiot would still be more clever!!

The reason dickbrains like him get voted into these positions is because dickbrains voted for him. I will give you a clue. Somewhere in the following string are two hidden pieces of information that tell you exactly why his voters are the way they are: "Lamar Smith (R-TX)".